How do neuroscientists “make sense” of public visibility in the context of their scientific work? Hierarchical cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling analyses of 24 in-depth interviews with U.S. neuroscientists produced word groups and concept maps related to possible “medialization” processes. Findings suggest that scientists are factoring new communication channels into their public visibility calculus, although one legacy medium, The New York Times, remains the holy grail of medialization.
AllgaierJ.DunwoodyS.BrossardD.LoY.-Y.PetersH. P. (2013a). Journalism and social media as means of observing the contexts of science. BioScience, 63, 284-287.
2.
AllgaierJ.DunwoodyS.BrossardD.LoY.-Y.PetersH. P. (2013b). Medialized science? Neuroscientists’ reflections on their role as journalistic sources. Journalism Practice, 7, 413-429. doi:10.1080/17512786.2013.802477
3.
BartlettF. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BauerM. W. (2012). Public attention to science 1820-2010: A “longue durée” picture. In RödderS.FranzenM.WeingartP. (Eds.), The sciences’ media connection: Public communication and its repercussions: Sociology of the sciences yearbook (Vol. 28, pp. 35-57). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
5.
BikH. M.GoldsteinM. C. (2013). An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS Biology, 11(4), e1001535. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535
6.
BombaciS. P.FarrC. M.GalloH. T.ManganA. M.StinsonL. T.KaushikM.PejcharL. (2015). Using Twitter to communicate conservation science from a professional conference. Conservation Biology, 30, 216-225. doi:10.1111/cobi.12570
7.
BonneyR.PhillipsT. B.BallardH. L.EnckJ. W. (2015). Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?Public Understanding of Science, 25, 2-16. doi:10.1177/0963662515607406
8.
BrossardD. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14096-14101.
9.
CarleyK. M.PalmquistM. (1992). Extracting, representing, and analyzing mental models. Social Forces, 70, 601-636.
10.
CraikK. J. W. (1943). The nature of explanation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Di MininE.TenkanenH.ToivonenT. (2015). Prospects and challenges for social media data in conservation science. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 3, 63.
12.
DoerfelM. L.BarnettG. A. (1996). The use of Catpac for text analysis. Field Methods, 8(2), 4-7.
13.
DoerfelM. L.MarshP. S. (2003). Candidate-issue positioning in the context of presidential debates. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 212-237. doi:10.1080/00909880305380
14.
DownsA. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue attention cycle. Public Interest, 28(1), 38-50.
15.
DoyleJ. K.FordD. N. (1999). Mental models concepts revisited: Some clarifications and a reply to Lane. System Dynamics Review, 15, 411-415.
16.
ElliottR. (2012). The medialization of regenerative medicine: Frames and metaphors in UK news stories. In RödderS.FranzenM.WeingartP. (Eds.), The sciences’ media connection: Public communication and its repercussions: Sociology of the sciences yearbook (Vol. 28, pp. 87-105). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
17.
EysenbachG. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet research, 13(4). Retrieved from http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e123/
18.
FranzenM. (2012). Making science news: The press relations of scientific journals and implications for scholarly communication. In RödderS.FranzenM.WeingartP. (Eds.), The sciences’ media connection: Public communication and its repercussions: Sociology of the sciences yearbook (Vol. 28, pp. 333-352). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
19.
GibbonsM.LimogesC.NowotnyH.SchwartzmanS.ScottP.TrowM. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, England: Sage.
20.
GregoryJ.MillerS. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.
21.
HoffmannM. H. (2005). Logical argument mapping: A method for overcoming cognitive problems of conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16, 304-334.
22.
IvanovaA.SchäferM. S.SchlichtingI.SchmidtA. (2013). Is there a medialization of climate science? Results from a survey of German climate scientists. Science Communication, 35, 626-653. doi:10.1177/1075547012475226
23.
JonesN. A.RossH.LynamT.PerezP.LeitchA. (2011). Mental models: An interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 46. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art46/
24.
JonkerC. M.van RiemsdijkM. B.VermeulenB. (2011). Shared mental models: A conceptual analysis. Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems VI (pp. 132-151). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
25.
KaplanK. (2013). Crowd-funding: Cash on demand. Nature, 497, 147-149.
26.
KiernanV. (2003). Diffusion of news about research. Science Communication, 25, 3-13.
27.
KolkmanM. J.KokM.Van der VeenA. (2005). Mental model mapping as a new tool to analyse the use of information in decision-making in integrated water management. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 30, 317-332.
28.
LeeC. J.ScheufeleD. A. (2006). The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 819-834.
29.
LiangX.SuL. Y.-F.YeoS. K.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD.XenosM.. . . CorleyE. A. (2014). Building buzz: (Scientists) Communicating science in new media environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. doi:10.1177/1077699014550092
30.
LimY. S. (2011). Semantic web and contextual information: Semantic network analysis of online journalistic texts. In BreslinJ.BurgT.KimH.-G.RafteryT.SchmidtJ.-H. (Eds.), Recent trends and developments in social software (Vol. 6045, pp. 52-62). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
31.
LoY.-Y.PetersH. P. (2013). Taiwanese life scientists less “medialized” than their Western colleagues. Public Understanding of Science, 24, 6-22 doi:10.1177/0963662513513863
32.
MillerM. M. (1997). Frame mapping and analysis of news coverage of contentious issues. Social Science Computer Review, 15, 367-378. doi:10.1177/089443939701500403
33.
National Science Board. (2014). Science and engineering indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
NewmanG.WigginsA.CrallA.GrahamE.NewmanS.CrowstonK. (2012). The future of citizen science: Emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, 298-304.
36.
NisbetM. C.ScheufeleD. A.ShanahanJ.MoyP.BrossardD.LewensteinB. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29, 584-608.
37.
NowotnyH.ScottP.GibbonsM. (2005). Re-thinking science: Mode 2 in societal context. In CarayannisE. G.CampbellD. (Eds.), Knowledge creation, diffusion and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters (pp. 39-51). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
38.
O’ConnorC.ReesG.JoffeH. (2010). Neuroscience in the public sphere. Neuron, 74, 220-226.
39.
OrelliB. (2012). Biotech crowdfunding paves way for angels. Nature Biotechnology, 30, 1020-1020.
40.
PetersH. P. (2012). Scientific sources and the mass media: Forms and consequences of medialization. In RödderS.FranzenM.WeingartP. (Eds.), The sciences’ media connection: Public communication and its repercussions: Sociology of the sciences yearbook (Vol. 28, pp. 217-239). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
41.
PetersH. P.BrossardD.de CheveignéS.DunwoodyS.KallfassM.MillerS.TsuchidaS. (2008a). Interactions with the mass media. Science, 321, 204-205.
42.
PetersH. P.BrossardD.de CheveignéS.DunwoodyS.KallfassM.MillerS.TsuchidaS. (2008b). Science-media interface: It’s time to reconsider. Science Communication, 30, 266-276. doi:10.1177/1075547008324809
43.
PetersH. P.HeinrichsH.JungA.KallfassM.PetersenI. (2008). Medialization of science as a prerequisite of its legitimization and political relevance. In ChengD.ClaessensD., M.GascoigneN. R. J.MetcalfeJ.SchieleB.ShiS. (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 71-92). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
44.
PetersenA.AndersonA.AllanS.WilkinsonC. (2009). Opening the black box: Scientists’ views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 512-530. doi:10.1177/0963662507084202
45.
PhillipsD. P.KanterE. J.BednarczykB.TastadP. L. (1991). Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. New England Journal of Medicine, 325, 1180-1183.
46.
PriemJ.PiwowarH. A.HemmingerB. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745
47.
RacineE.WaldmanS.RosenbergJ.IllesJ. (2012). Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Social Science & Media, 71, 725-733.
48.
RödderS. (2009). Reassessing the concept of a medialization of science: A story from the “book of life.”Public Understanding of Science, 18, 452-463. doi:10.1177/0963662507081168
49.
RödderS.SchäferM. S. (2010). Repercussion and resistance: An empirical study on the interrelation between science and mass media. Communications, 35, 249-267.
50.
SamkinG.SchneiderA. (2008). Adding scientific rigour to qualitative data analysis: An illustrative example. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 5, 207-238.
51.
SchäferM. S. (2009). From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication, 30, 475-505. doi:10.1177/1075547008326943
52.
SchäferM. S. (2012). Online communication on climate change and climate politics: A literature review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3, 527-543. doi:10.1002/wcc.191
53.
ScheufeleD. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14040-14047. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213275110
54.
SchulzW. (2004). Reconstructing medialization as an analytical concept. European Journal of Communication, 19(1), 87-101. doi:10.1177/0267323104040696
55.
SouthwellB. G.TorresA. (2006). Connecting interpersonal and mass communication: Science news exposure, perceived ability to understand science, and conversation. Communication Monographs, 73, 334-350.
56.
SvalastogA. L.AllgaierJ.MartinelliL.GajovicS. (2014). Distortion, confusion, and impasses: Could a public dialogue within knowledge landscapes contribute to better communication and understanding of innovative knowledge?Croatian Medical Journal, 55(1), 54-60.
57.
ThomasG.DurantJ. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science. Scientific Literacy Papers, 1, 1-14.
58.
TrenchB. (2012). Scientists’ blogs: Glimpses behind the scenes. In RödderS.FranzenM.WeingartP. (Eds.), The sciences’ media connection: Public communication and its repercussions: Sociology of the sciences yearbook (Vol. 28, pp. 273-289). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
59.
WeingartP. (1997). From “finalization” to “mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles?Social Science Information, 36, 591-613.
60.
WeingartP. (1998). Science and the media. Research Policy, 27, 869-879.
61.
WeingartP. (2002). The moment of truth for science: The consequences of “knowledge society” for society and science. EMBO Reports, 3, 703-706.
62.
WeingartP. (2012). The lure of the mass media and its repercussions on science. In RödderS.FranzenM.WeingartP. (Eds.), The sciences’ media connection: Public communication and its repercussions: Sociology of the sciences yearbook (Vol. 28, pp. 17-32). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer
63.
WheatR. E.WangY.ByrnesJ. E.RanganathanJ. (2013). Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(2), 71-72.
64.
WilcoxC. (2012). Guest editorial: It’s time to e-volve: Taking responsibility for science communication in a digital age. The Biological Bulletin, 222(2), 85-87.
65.
WoelfelJ. K. (1998). User’s guide: Catpac II Version 2.0. New York, NY: Kah Press.
ZüllC.LandmannJ. (2004, August). Computer-assisted content analysis without dictionary. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Logic and Methodology (RC33): “Recent Developments and Applications in Social Research Methodology,”Amsterdam, Netherlands.
